Good morning, everybody.
Please be seated. Thank you all for being here. Let me just
acknowledge the presence of some of my outstanding Cabinet members and
advisors. We've got our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. We have
our CIA Director Leon Panetta. We have our Secretary of Defense William
Gates; Secretary Napolitano of Department of Homeland Security; Attorney
General Eric Holder; my National Security Advisor Jim Jones. And I want
to especially thank our Acting Archivist of the United States, Adrienne
Thomas.

I also want to acknowledge
several members of the House who have great interest in intelligence
matters. I want to thank Congressman Reyes, Congressman Hoekstra,
Congressman King, as well as Congressman Thompson, for being here
today. Thank you so much.

These are extraordinary
times for our country. We're confronting a historic economic crisis.
We're fighting two wars. We face a range of challenges that will define
the way that Americans will live in the 21st century. So there's no
shortage of work to be done, or responsibilities to bear.

And we've begun to make
progress. Just this week, we've taken steps to protect American
consumers and homeowners, and to reform our system of government
contracting so that we better protect our people while spending our
money more wisely. The -- it's a good bill. The engines of our economy
are slowly beginning to turn, and we're working towards historic reform
on health care and on energy. I want to say to the members of Congress,
I welcome all the extraordinary work that has been done over these last
four months on these and other issues.

In the midst of all these
challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as
President is to keep the American people safe. It's the first thing
that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It's the last thing
that I think about when I go to sleep at night.

And this responsibility is
only magnified in an era when an extremist ideology threatens our
people, and technology gives a handful of terrorists the potential to do
us great harm. We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest
attack on American soil in our history. We know that al Qaeda is
actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be
with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power
to defeat it.

Already, we've taken several
steps to achieve that goal. For the first time since 2002, we're
providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the
fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and
Pakistan. We're investing in the 21st century military and intelligence
capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of a nimble
enemy. We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny
the world's most dangerous people access to the world's deadliest
weapons. And we've launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear
materials within four years. We're better protecting our border, and
increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster.
We're building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle,
and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates. And we have renewed American
diplomacy so that we once again have the strength and standing to truly
lead the world.

These steps are all critical
to keeping America secure. But I believe with every fiber of my being
that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we
enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we
hold in this very hall -- the Declaration of Independence, the
Constitution, the Bill of Rights -- these are not simply words written
into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in
this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom,
fairness, equality, and dignity around the world.

I stand here today as
someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father
came to these shores in search of the promise that they offered. My
mother made me rise before dawn to learn their truths when I lived as a
child in a foreign land. My own American journey was paved by
generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words -- "to
form a more perfect union." I've studied the Constitution as a student,
I've taught it as a teacher, I've been bound by it as a lawyer and a
legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we
must never, ever, turn our back on its enduring principles for
expedience sake.

I make this claim not simply
as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only
because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and it
keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national
security asset -- in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of
upheaval.

Fidelity to our values is
the reason why the United States of America grew from a small string of
colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the
world.

It's the reason why enemy
soldiers have surrendered to us in battle, knowing they'd receive better
treatment from America's Armed Forces than from their own government.

It's the reason why America
has benefitted from strong alliances that amplified our power, and drawn
a sharp, moral contrast with our adversaries.

It's the reason why we've
been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism and outlast the iron
curtain of communism, and enlist free nations and free peoples
everywhere in the common cause and common effort of liberty.

From Europe to the Pacific,
we've been the nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced
tyranny with the rule of law. That is who we are. And where terrorists
offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must
demonstrate that our values and our institutions are more resilient than
a hateful ideology.

After 9/11, we knew that we
had entered a new era -- that enemies who did not abide by any law of
war would present new challenges to our application of the law; that our
government would need new tools to protect the American people, and that
these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of simply
prosecuting those who try to carry them out.

Unfortunately, faced with an
uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. I
believe that many of these decisions were motivated by a sincere desire
to protect the American people. But I also believe that all too often
our government made decisions based on fear rather than foresight; that
all too often our government trimmed facts and evidence to fit
ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our
power and our principles, too often we set those principles aside as
luxuries that we could no longer afford. And during this season of
fear, too many of us -- Democrats and Republicans, politicians,
journalists, and citizens -- fell silent.

In other words, we went off
course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that
was shared by the American people who nominated candidates for President
from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a
new approach -- one that rejected torture and one that recognized the
imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Now let me be clear: We are
indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update
our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an
abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and
balances and accountability. For reasons that I will explain, the
decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc
legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor
sustainable -- a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions
and time-tested institutions, and that failed to use our values as a
compass. And that's why I took several steps upon taking office to
better protect the American people.

First, I banned the use of
so-called enhanced interrogation techniques by the United States of
America.

I know some have argued that
brutal methods like waterboarding were necessary to keep us safe. I
could not disagree more. As Commander-in-Chief, I see the
intelligence. I bear the responsibility for keeping this country safe.
And I categorically reject the assertion that these are the most
effective means of interrogation. What's more, they undermine the rule
of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment
tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us,
while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the
lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender
to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if
they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and
counterterrorism efforts -- they undermined them, and that is why I
ended them once and for all.

Now, I should add, the
arguments against these techniques did not originate from my
administration. As Senator McCain once said, torture "serves as a great
propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us." And
even under President Bush, there was recognition among members of his
own administration -- including a Secretary of State, other senior
officials, and many in the military and intelligence community -- that
those who argued for these tactics were on the wrong side of the debate,
and the wrong side of history. That's why we must leave these methods
where they belong -- in the past. They are not who we are, and they are
not America.

The second decision that I
made was to order the closing of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

For over seven years, we
have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo. During that time, the
system of military commissions that were in place at Guantanamo
succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspected terrorists.
Let me repeat that: three convictions in over seven years. Instead of
bringing terrorists to justice, efforts at prosecution met setback after
setback, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Court invalidated
the entire system. Meanwhile, over 525 detainees were released from
Guantanamo under not my administration, under the previous
administration. Let me repeat that: Two-thirds of the detainees were
released before I took office and ordered the closure of Guantanamo.

There is also no question
that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest
currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the
struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and
traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the
rule of law. In fact, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo
in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be
beyond the law -- a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly
rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism,
Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to
its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more
terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear:
Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened
American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It
sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an
enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs
of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it.
That's why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and
that is why I ordered it closed within one year.

The third decision that I
made was to order a review of all pending cases at Guantanamo. I knew
when I ordered Guantanamo closed that it would be difficult and
complex. There are 240 people there who have now spent years in legal
limbo. In dealing with this situation, we don't have the luxury of
starting from scratch. We're cleaning up something that is, quite
simply, a mess -- a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a
flood of legal challenges that my administration is forced to deal with
on a constant, almost daily basis, and it consumes the time of
government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our
country.

Indeed, the legal challenges
that have sparked so much debate in recent weeks here in Washington
would be taking place whether or not I decided to close Guantanamo. For
example, the court order to release 17 Uighurs -- 17 Uighur detainees
took place last fall, when George Bush was President. The Supreme Court
that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was
overwhelmingly appointed by Republican Presidents -- not wild-eyed
liberals. In other words, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo
detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the
problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first
place.

Now let me be blunt. There
are no neat or easy answers here. I wish there were. But I can tell
you that the wrong answer is to pretend like this problem will go away
if we maintain an unsustainable status quo. As President, I refuse to
allow this problem to fester. I refuse to pass it on to somebody else.
It is my responsibility to solve the problem. Our security interests
will not permit us to delay. Our courts won't allow it. And neither
should our conscience.

Now, over the last several
weeks, we've seen a return of the politicization of these issues that
have characterized the last several years. I'm an elected official; I
understand these problems arouse passions and concerns. They should.
We're confronting some of the most complicated questions that a
democracy can face. But I have no interest in spending all of our time
relitigating the policies of the last eight years. I'll leave that to
others. I want to solve these problems, and I want to solve them
together as Americans.

And we will be ill-served by
some of the fear-mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue.
Listening to the recent debate, I've heard words that, frankly, are
calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have
more to do with politics than protecting our country. So I want to take
this opportunity to lay out what we are doing, and how we intend to
resolve these outstanding issues. I will explain how each action that
we are taking will help build a framework that protects both the
American people and the values that we hold most dear. And I'll focus
on two broad areas: first, issues relating to Guantanamo and our
detention policy; but, second, I also want to discuss issues relating to
security and transparency.

Now, let me begin by
disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: We are not going to
release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we
release detainees within the United States who endanger the American
people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek
to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we
hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders --
namely, highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety.

As we make these decisions,
bear in mind the following face: Nobody has ever escaped from one of
our federal, supermax prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted
terrorists. As Republican Lindsey Graham said, the idea that we cannot
find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United
States is not rational.

We are currently in the
process of reviewing each of the detainee cases at Guantanamo to
determine the appropriate policy for dealing with them. And as we do
so, we are acutely aware that under the last administration, detainees
were released and, in some cases, returned to the battlefield. That's
why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that
let those detainees go in the past. Instead we are treating these cases
with the care and attention that the law requires and that our security
demands.

Now, going forward, these
cases will fall into five distinct categories.

First, whenever feasible, we
will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal
courts -- courts provided for by the United States Constitution. Some
have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of
terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and our juries, our citizens,
are tough enough to convict terrorists. The record makes that clear.
Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World Trade Center. He was convicted
in our courts and is serving a life sentence in U.S. prisons. Zacarias
Moussaoui has been identified as the 20th 9/11 hijacker. He was
convicted in our courts, and he too is serving a life sentence in
prison. If we can try those terrorists in our courts and hold them in
our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from Guantanamo.

Recently, we prosecuted and
received a guilty plea from a detainee, al-Marri, in federal court after
years of legal confusion. We're preparing to transfer another detainee
to the Southern District Court of New York, where he will face trial on
charges related to the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania -- bombings that killed over 200 people. Preventing this
detainee from coming to our shores would prevent his trial and
conviction. And after over a decade, it is time to finally see that
justice is served, and that is what we intend to do.

The second category of cases
involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are therefore best
tried through military commissions. Military commissions have a history
in the United States dating back to George Washington and the
Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees
for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of
sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; they allow for
the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of
evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot always be effectively
presented in federal courts.

Now, some have suggested
that this represents a reversal on my part. They should look at the
record. In 2006, I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush
administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish
a legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningful due process
rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal.

I said at that time,
however, that I supported the use of military commissions to try
detainees, provided there were several reforms, and in fact there were
some bipartisan efforts to achieve those reforms. Those are the reforms
that we are now making. Instead of using the flawed commissions of the
last seven years, my administration is bringing our commissions in line
with the rule of law. We will no longer permit the use of evidence --
as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or
degrading interrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to
prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we
will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and
more protections if they refuse to testify. These reforms, among
others, will make our military commissions a more credible and effective
means of administering justice, and I will work with Congress and
members of both parties, as well as legal authorities across the
political spectrum, on legislation to ensure that these commissions are
fair, legitimate, and effective.

The third category of
detainees includes those who have been ordered released by the courts.
Now, let me repeat what I said earlier: This has nothing to do with my
decision to close Guantanamo. It has to do with the rule of law. The
courts have spoken. They have found that there's no legitimate reason
to hold 21 of the people currently held at Guantanamo. Nineteen of
these findings took place before I was sworn into office. I cannot
ignore these rulings because as President, I too am bound by the law.
The United States is a nation of laws and so we must abide by these
rulings.

The fourth category of cases
involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to
another country. So far, our review team has approved 50 detainees for
transfer. And my administration is in ongoing discussions with a number
of other countries about the transfer of detainees to their soil for
detention and rehabilitation.

Now, finally, there remains
the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who
pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest
here -- this is the toughest single issue that we will face. We're
going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at
Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process
is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted
for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who
nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States.
Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive
explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban
troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or
otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are
people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

Let me repeat: I am not
going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda
terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and
those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be
prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize
that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based
simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. That's why my
administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure
that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear,
defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category.
We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must
have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged
detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

I know that creating such a
system poses unique challenges. And other countries have grappled with
this question; now, so must we. But I want to be very clear that our
goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining
Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal is not to
avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system,
prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and
when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep
them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that
involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward,
my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate
legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our
Constitution.

Now, as our efforts to close
Guantanamo move forward, I know that the politics in Congress will be
difficult. These are issues that are fodder for 30-second commercials.
You can almost picture the direct mail pieces that emerge from any vote
on this issue -- designed to frighten the population. I get it. But if
we continue to make decisions within a climate of fear, we will make
more mistakes. And if we refuse to deal with these issues today, then I
guarantee you that they will be an albatross around our efforts to
combat terrorism in the future.

I have confidence that the
American people are more interested in doing what is right to protect
this country than in political posturing. I am not the only person in
this city who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution -- so did each
and every member of Congress. And together we have a responsibility to
enlist our values in the effort to secure our people, and to leave
behind the legacy that makes it easier for future Presidents to keep
this country safe.

Now, let me touch on a
second set of issues that relate to security and transparency.

National security requires a
delicate balance. One the one hand, our democracy depends on
transparency. On the other hand, some information must be protected
from public disclosure for the sake of our security -- for instance, the
movement of our troops, our intelligence-gathering, or the information
we have about a terrorist organization and its affiliates. In these and
other cases, lives are at stake.

Now, several weeks ago, as
part of an ongoing court case, I released memos issued by the previous
administration's Office of Legal Counsel. I did not do this because I
disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos
authorized, and I didn't release the documents because I rejected their
legal rationales -- although I do on both counts. I released the memos
because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already
widely known, the Bush administration had acknowledged its existence,
and I had already banned those methods. The argument that somehow by
releasing those memos we are providing terrorists with information about
how they will be interrogated makes no sense. We will not be
interrogating terrorists using that approach. That approach is now
prohibited.

In short, I released these
memos because there was no overriding reason to protect them. And the
ensuing debate has helped the American people better understand how
these interrogation methods came to be authorized and used.

On the other hand, I
recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of
detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004. Individuals who
violated standards of behavior in these photos have been investigated
and they have been held accountable. There was and is no debate as to
whether what is reflected in those photos is wrong. Nothing has been
concealed to absolve perpetrators of crimes. However, it was my
judgment -- informed by my national security team -- that releasing
these photos would inflame anti-American opinion and allow our enemies
to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning, and inaccurate brush,
thereby endangering them in theaters of war.

In short, there is a clear
and compelling reason to not release these particular photos. There are
nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving in harm's way, and I have a
solemn responsibility for their safety as Commander-in-Chief. Nothing
would be gained by the release of these photos that matters more than
the lives of our young men and women serving in harm's way.

Now, in the press's mind and
in some of the public's mind, these two cases are contradictory. They
are not to me. In each of these cases, I had to strike the right
balance between transparency and national security. And this balance
brings with it a precious responsibility. There's no doubt that the
American people have seen this balance tested over the last several
years. In the images from Abu Ghraib and the brutal interrogation
techniques made public long before I was President, the American people
learned of actions taken in their name that bear no resemblance to the
ideals that generations of Americans have fought for. And whether it
was the run-up to the Iraq war or the revelation of secret programs,
Americans often felt like part of the story had been unnecessarily
withheld from them. And that caused suspicion to build up. And that
leads to a thirst for accountability.

I understand that. I ran
for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. And
that's why, whenever possible, my administration will make all
information available to the American people so that they can make
informed judgments and hold us accountable. But I have never argued --
and I never will -- that our most sensitive national security matters
should simply be an open book. I will never abandon -- and will
vigorously defend -- the necessity of classification to defend our
troops at war, to protect sources and methods, and to safeguard
confidential actions that keep the American people safe. Here's the
difference though: Whenever we cannot release certain information to
the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there
is oversight of my actions -- by Congress or by the courts.

We're currently launching a
review of current policies by all those agencies responsible for the
classification of documents to determine where reforms are possible, and
to assure that the other branches of government will be in a position to
review executive branch decisions on these matters. Because in our
system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the
watchers -- especially when it comes to sensitive administration --
information.

Now, along these same lines,
my administration is also confronting challenges to what is known as the
"state secrets" privilege. This is a doctrine that allows the
government to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. It's
been used by many past Presidents -- Republican and Democrat -- for many
decades. And while this principle is absolutely necessary in some
circumstances to protect national security, I am concerned that it has
been over-used. It is also currently the subject of a wide range of
lawsuits. So let me lay out some principles here. We must not protect
information merely because it reveals the violation of a law or
embarrassment to the government. And that's why my administration is
nearing completion of a thorough review of this practice.

And we plan to embrace
several principles for reform. We will apply a stricter legal test to
material that can be protected under the state secrets privilege. We
will not assert the privilege in court without first following our own
formal process, including review by a Justice Department committee and
the personal approval of the Attorney General. And each year we will
voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the privilege and
why because, as I said before, there must be proper oversight over our
actions.

On all these matters related
to the disclosure of sensitive information, I wish I could say that
there was some simple formula out there to be had. There is not. These
often involve tough calls, involve competing concerns, and they require
a surgical approach. But the common thread that runs through all of my
decisions is simple: We will safeguard what we must to protect the
American people, but we will also ensure the accountability and
oversight that is the hallmark of our constitutional system. I will
never hide the truth because it's uncomfortable. I will deal with
Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell
the American people what I know and don't know, and when I release
something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why.

Now, in all the areas that
I've discussed today, the policies that I've proposed represent a new
direction from the last eight years. To protect the American people and
our values, we've banned enhanced interrogation techniques. We are
closing the prison at Guantanamo. We are reforming military
commissions, and we will pursue a new legal regime to detain
terrorists. We are declassifying more information and embracing more
oversight of our actions, and we're narrowing our use of the state
secrets privilege. These are dramatic changes that will put our
approach to national security on a surer, safer, and more sustainable
footing. Their implementation will take time, but they will get done.

There's a core principle
that we will apply to all of our actions. Even as we clean up the mess
at Guantanamo, we will constantly reevaluate our approach, subject our
decisions to review from other branches of government, as well as the
public. We seek the strongest and most sustainable legal framework for
addressing these issues in the long term -- not to serve immediate
politics, but to do what's right over the long term. By doing that we
can leave behind a legacy that outlasts my administration, my
presidency, that endures for the next President and the President after
that -- a legacy that protects the American people and enjoys a broad
legitimacy at home and abroad.

Now, this is what I mean
when I say that we need to focus on the future. I recognize that many
still have a strong desire to focus on the past. When it comes to
actions of the last eight years, passions are high. Some Americans are
angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, in some
cases debates that they have lost. I know that these debates lead
directly, in some cases, to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps
through an independent commission.

I've opposed the creation of
such a commission because I believe that our existing democratic
institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress
can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the
Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The
Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any
violations of our laws or miscarriages of justice.

It's no secret there is a
tendency in Washington to spend our time pointing fingers at one
another. And it's no secret that our media culture feeds the impulse
that lead to a good fight and good copy. But nothing will contribute
more than that than a extended relitigation of the last eight years.
Already, we've seen how that kind of effort only leads those in
Washington to different sides to laying blame. It can distract us from
focusing our time, our efforts, and our politics on the challenges of
the future.

We see that, above all, in
the recent debate -- how the recent debate has obscured the truth and
sends people into opposite and absolutist ends. On the one side of the
spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique
challenges posed by terrorism, and would almost never put national
security over transparency. And on the other end of the spectrum, there
are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words:
"Anything goes." Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting
terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President
should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants -- provided it is
a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in
their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not
absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our
problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our
values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we
approach difficult questions with honesty and care and a dose of common
sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That's the
challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of
our strength through the ages. That's what makes the United States of
America different as a nation.

I can stand here today, as
President of the United States, and say without exception or
equivocation that we do not torture, and that we will vigorously protect
our people while forging a strong and durable framework that allows us
to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law. Make no mistake:
If we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past
several years, then I will not be able to say that as President. And if
we cannot stand for our core values, then we are not keeping faith with
the documents that are enshrined in this hall.

The Framers who drafted the
Constitution could not have foreseen the challenges that have unfolded
over the last 222 years. But our Constitution has endured through
secession and civil rights, through World War and Cold War, because it
provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically;
it provides a compass that can help us find our way. It hasn't always
been easy. We are an imperfect people. Every now and then, there are
those who think that America's safety and success requires us to walk
away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building. And we hear
such voices today. But over the long haul the American people have
resisted that temptation. And though we've made our share of mistakes,
required some course corrections, ultimately we have held fast to the
principles that have been the source of our strength and a beacon to the
world.

Now this generation faces a
great test in the specter of terrorism. And unlike the Civil War or
World War II, we can't count on a surrender ceremony to bring this
journey to an end. Right now, in distant training camps and in crowded
cities, there are people plotting to take American lives. That will be
the case a year from now, five years from now, and -- in all probability
-- 10 years from now. Neither I nor anyone can stand here today and say
that there will not be another terrorist attack that takes American
lives. But I can say with certainty that my administration -- along
with our extraordinary troops and the patriotic men and women who defend
our national security -- will do everything in our power to keep the
American people safe. And I do know with certainty that we can defeat
al Qaeda. Because the terrorists can only succeed if they swell their
ranks and alienate America from our allies, and they will never be able
to do that if we stay true to who we are, if we forge tough and durable
approaches to fighting terrorism that are anchored in our timeless
ideals. This must be our common purpose.

I ran for President because
I believe that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we
solve them together. We will not be safe if we see national security as
a wedge that divides America -- it can and must be a cause that unites
us as one people and as one nation. We've done so before in times that
were more perilous than ours. We will do so once again.